Sukhdeyal vs Muni Lal and another

Wort, J.—The action in this case was for a sum of money supposed to have been owed by the defendants for the price of cloth supplied by the plaintiff. The Judge of the Small Cause Court has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff''s story is untrue. It is a pure question of fact; but it is urged before me by Mr. Khurshed Husnain on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner that the decision of the learned Judge was an arbitrary one and that the reasons given for either believing or disbelieving the evidence were not juridical reasons. The learned Judge seems to think that it was necessary for the plaintiff in order to establish his case, to call all persons who had any possible connection with the defendants including their landlord. But the mere absence of these witnesses does not entitle the Judge as a matter of law to disbelieve the plaintiff''s witnesses. Their evidence has to be judged by the effect of the cross-examination, possibly by items of contradiction and so on and it may very well be that a Judge would in this case come to the conclusion that either evidence of plaintiff''s witness No. 1 or plaintiff''s witness No. 5 (to take an example) is inaccurate. But the mere fact that they mention different months for the payment possibly of the same item, although in this particular they do not agree as to the amount, may or may not entitle the Judge to come to the conclusion that one or other of the witnesses''s evidence is not to be believed. But that again does not dispose of the question whether the plaintiff made out his case or not. The Judge seems also to dispose of the plaintiff''s witness No. 2 on the ground that he has had no dealings with the defendant but had had dealings with the plaintiff. That again is not necessarily a reason why the witness should be disbelieved.

But the more serious matter is the question of the account books. The Judge is not entitled to disbelieve the account books on speculative reasons, such as he has given. He says in this connection:

So the account-book can''t be relied upon especially when it can''t be denied that it can easily be manipulated by a clever man like P. W, No. 1.

Everyone knows that a book can be manipulated and forged; but the question is, was it forged? That was a matter for the learned Judge to decide and he came to his conclusion on speculation. No one denies that there was a possibility; but no Judge merely by reason of that fact should hold that the book is not to be believed. It is true that a Judge in a Small Cause Court case is not bound to deal elaborately with the argument''s and details of the case; but he is bound to state the reasons for the decision at which he has arrived; and those reasons must be juridical ones and not arbitrary. It was a question of fact; but if the reasons for the decision are as I have said, arbitrary, then it is a judgment which is contrary to law.

The matter must go back for retrial, but the observations which I have made must in no way be held to bind the learned Judge in coming to a conclusion on the evidence as to whether the plaintiff''s case is true or false. But the case cannot, be disposed of on the ground of the absence of witnesses unless they were essential or on the ground that there were possibilities that the evidence--documentary or otherwise--adduced before the Judge was untrue. There will be a new trial. The rule is made absolute. The costs of this rule will abide the hearing in the Court below: hearing fee one gold mohur.